What is the positive evidence FOR creationism?

[Loudmouth]

Looks like a good article. I'll have to save it for when I've finished reading "Dismantling the Big Bang" (Quite technical, so takes some understanding in places) and "I don't have enough faith to be an atheist (easier to read and very thought-provoking). PS. I'd recommend getting your hands on Spike Psarris's excellent DVDs entitled, "What you aren't being told about astronomy" (there are two available at the moment, with a third due out very soon).

I see that you can't find a single piece of positive evidence from that website.

 

[Aldebaran]

If what I present from that site is an attack on evolution instead of positive evidence for creationism, can I say that you misled us?

If it shows you evidence to support Creationism, then you'll say that it attacks evolution. Face it--you already have your mind made up and are not open to being proven wrong.

 

[DerelictJunction]

No. I'll just let anyone who wants to find what they're looking for look through it for their particular area of interest.

Let's try this one:

All Present Living Kinds of Animals and Plants Have Remained Fixed Since Creation, Other than Extinctions, and Genetic Variation in Originally Created Kinds Has Only Occurred within Narrow Limits.

Systematic gaps occur between kinds in the fossil record. None of the intermediate fossils that would be expected on the basis of the evolution model have been found between single celled organisms and invertebrates, between invertebrates and vertebrates, between fish and amphibians, between amphibians and reptiles, between reptiles and birds or mammals, or between "lower" mammals and primates. While evolutionists might assume that these intermediate forms existed at one time, none of the hundreds of millions of fossils found so far provide the missing links. The few suggested links such as Archoeopteryx and the horse series have been rendered questionable by more detailed data. Fossils and living organisms are readily subjected to the same criteria of classification. Thus present kinds of animals and plants apparently were created, as shown by the systematic fossil gaps and by the similarity of fossil forms to living forms. A kind may be defined as a generally interfertile group of organisms that possesses variant genes for a common set of traits but that does not interbreed with other groups of organisms under normal circumstances. Any evolutionary change between kinds (necessary for the emergence of complex from simple organisms) would require addition of entirely new traits to the common set and enormous expansion of the gene pool over time, and could not occur from mere ecologically adaptive variations of a given trait set (which the creation model recognizes).​

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Pikaia_gracilens --- transitional fossil between invertebrates and vertebrates.

There are a great many transitional fossils that I could put on this post but the claim by this "evidence" is that further data would render this classification questionable. What data do you have that makes Pikaia_gracilens a questionable example of a transitional species?

I noticed that the examples of Archoeopteryx and the horse series were declared questionable by "more detailed data" but that "data" was neither supplied nor referenced. Do you have this "data" so that we can look it over?

What is the basis for the assertion that change between kinds requires "addition of entirely new traits to the common set and enormous expansion of the gene pool over time". What is the evidence that the gene pool must expand? What does that even mean in this context?

 

[Loudmouth]

If it shows you evidence to support Creationism, then you'll say that it attacks evolution.

What positive evidence for creationism does that website present?

Face it--you already have your mind made up and are not open to being proven wrong.

Psychological projection at its best.

 

[Loudmouth]

Systematic gaps occur between kinds in the fossil record. None of the intermediate fossils that would be expected on the basis of the evolution model have been found between single celled organisms and invertebrates, . . .

That would be an attack on evolution, just in case anyone is keeping track.

 

[Aldebaran]

What positive evidence for creationism does that website present?

Still haven't look at it, have you?

Psychological projection at its best.

The fact that you're still posting is evidence that you haven't been reading. So, hop to it!

 

[Loudmouth]

Still haven't look at it, have you?

It isn't my job to present positive evidence for creationism. That's your burden of proof.

The fact that you're still posting is evidence that you haven't been reading. So, hop to it!

Not my job.

 

[Aldebaran]

That would be an attack on evolution, just in case anyone is keeping track.

What you just posted is an example of an evolutionist getting defensive when his favorite theory is challenged.

 

[Aldebaran]

It isn't my job to present positive evidence for creationism. That's your burden of proof.



Not my job.

Not what I'd expect from someone willing to learn.

 

[Loudmouth]

Translation: (hands covering ears) "Nah, nah, nah! I can't hear you!"

You haven't presented any evidence.

 

[sfs]

Not to mention that both are an attack on natural processes instead of positive evidence for creationism, which is what the thread is asking for.

Yeah, I stuck that bit in at the end in an edit.

 

[Loudmouth]

What you just posted is an example of an evolutionist getting defensive when his favorite theory is challenged.

Was the challenge not clear?

"I see lots of creationists trying to poke holes in alternate theories, but I don't see any objective evidence for creationism. Is there any? If so, what is it?"

THAT'S FROM THE OPENING POST!!!!!!

Where is the positive evidence for creationism?

 

[Aldebaran]

You haven't presented any evidence.

I guess you forgot. Here, I'll post the link again: http://www.icr.org/article/summary-scientific-evidence-for-creation/

 

[Loudmouth]

I guess you forgot. Here, I'll post the link again: http://www.icr.org/article/summary-scientific-evidence-for-creation/

I guess you forgot that this is a discussion forum.

 

[Aldebaran]

I guess you forgot that this is a discussion forum.

Yeah, discussion. I guess when you ask for something and then someone gives it to you, the discussion ends. I guess you would rather it be an "argument forum".

 

[sfs]

I guess you forgot. Here, I'll post the link again: http://www.icr.org/article/summary-scientific-evidence-for-creation/

I didn't forget. I looked at it. What I looked at was both wrong and an attack on evolution, rather than being evidence for creationism. Could you pick some piece of evidence in that article that is both correct and evidence for creationism? Just one. Then we could discuss that and stop this pointless exchange of "Did too", "Did not".

 

[Subduction Zone]

I guess you forgot. Here, I'll post the link again: http://www.icr.org/article/summary-scientific-evidence-for-creation/

So you still have nothing.

Thought so.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Yeah, discussion. I guess when you ask for something and then someone gives it to you, the discussion ends. I guess you would rather it be an "argument forum".

No, you supplied a link that only attacks evolution with lies and distortions. You presented no positive evidence for creation.

 

[Loudmouth]

Yeah, discussion. I guess when you ask for something and then someone gives it to you, the discussion ends.

I asked for a discussion of the evidence. Where did you provide that?

 

[Aldebaran]

No, you supplied a link that only attacks evolution with lies and distortions. You presented no positive evidence for creation.

See Post #345